Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> This is now being obsoleted by the later idea of allowing base installs > >> from a

Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> This is now being obsoleted by the later idea of allowing base installs >> from a chain of upgrade scripts. But if your upgrade scripts contain >> ALTER

Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

Peter, all, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > This is now being obsoleted by the later idea of allowing base installs > from a chain of upgrade scripts. But if your upgrade scripts contain > ALTER TABLE commands, you will probably still want to write base install >

Re: Install extensions using update scripts (was Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple)

Pushed with adjustments for the review points. Hopefully this will make Stephen's life easier, along with others submitting contrib-module updates. We should urge anyone who submits an old-style extension update patch to consider whether they really want to bother with a new base script. At

Re: Install extensions using update scripts (was Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-07 09:46:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> + * If reject_indirect is true, ignore paths that go through installable >> + * versions (presumably, caller will consider starting from such versions). > Reading this I was initially confused, only

Re: Install extensions using update scripts (was Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple)

On 2016-09-07 13:44:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > + > +Installing Extensions using Update Scripts > + > + > + An extension that has been around for awhile will probably exist in Wanted to cry typo for 'awhile' here, but apparently that's actually a word. The German in me is pleased.

Re: Install extensions using update scripts (was Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple)

Hi, On 2016-09-07 09:46:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > At this point it's awfully tempting to make ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE grow > a CASCADE option to allow automatic installation of new requirements > of the new version, but I didn't do that here. Sounds like a plan. After the refactoring that

Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

On 9/4/16 7:36 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Perhaps if the versioned install script was actually a non-versioned > install script in the source tree, and the Makefile simply installed it > into the correct place, then we could eliminate that part. (All very > hand-wavy, I've not looked at what it'd

Re: Install extensions using update scripts (was Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple)

I wrote: > Still no SGML doc updates. And here's a doc addition. regards, tom lane diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/extend.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/extend.sgml index df88380..1c8c420 100644 *** a/doc/src/sgml/extend.sgml --- b/doc/src/sgml/extend.sgml *** SELECT * FROM

Re: Install extensions using update scripts (was Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-05 22:24:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Ordinarily I'd be willing to stick this on the queue for the next >> commitfest, but it seems like we ought to try to get it pushed now >> so that Stephen can make use of the feature for his superuser

Re: Install extensions using update scripts (was Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple)

On 2016-09-05 22:24:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Ordinarily I'd be willing to stick this on the queue for the next > commitfest, but it seems like we ought to try to get it pushed now > so that Stephen can make use of the feature for his superuser changes. > Thoughts? Seems sensible to me. I can

Install extensions using update scripts (was Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple)

Andres Freund writes: > On September 4, 2016 6:33:30 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think nearly all of the >> infrastructure for this is already there in extension.c. > Yes, it doesn't sound very hard... I poked at this a bit, and indeed it's not that

Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

On September 4, 2016 6:33:30 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: >Andres Freund writes: >> On 2016-09-04 21:09:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Hm, couldn't we do that automatically? At least in the case where >only >>> one base-version script is available? > >> You

Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-04 21:09:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm, couldn't we do that automatically? At least in the case where only >> one base-version script is available? > You mean determining the baseversion? Hm, yes, that might work. But I'm > not sure how

Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

On 2016-09-04 21:09:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-09-04 11:55:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> It is becoming clear that the current extension update mechanism is kind > >> of brute-force for this sort of change. I have no ideas offhand about a >

Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-04 11:55:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> It is becoming clear that the current extension update mechanism is kind >> of brute-force for this sort of change. I have no ideas offhand about a >> better way to do it, but like Peter, I was dismayed

Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

On 2016-09-04 11:55:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > [ warning, thread hijack ahead ] > > Stephen Frost writes: > > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> I think this is a good change to pursue, and we'll likely want to do > >> more similar changes in

Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > [ warning, thread hijack ahead ] quite. > Stephen Frost writes: > > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> I think this is a good change to pursue, and we'll likely want to do > >> more similar changes

Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

[ warning, thread hijack ahead ] Stephen Frost writes: > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> I think this is a good change to pursue, and we'll likely want to do >> more similar changes in contrib. But I'm worried that what is logically >> a

Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 8/23/16 5:22 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Now that we track initial privileges on extension objects and changes to > > those permissions, we can drop the superuser() checks from the various > > functions which are part of the

Re: [HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

On 8/23/16 5:22 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Now that we track initial privileges on extension objects and changes to > those permissions, we can drop the superuser() checks from the various > functions which are part of the pgstattuple extension. > > Since a pg_upgrade will preserve the version of

[HACKERS] Remove superuser() checks from pgstattuple

Greetings, Attached is an rebased and updated patch to remove the explicit superuser() checks from the contrib extension pgstattuple, in favor of using the GRANT system to control access, and give the admin flexibility to GRANT access to this function without having to write wrapper functions,